The topic of morality is one that is never going away any time soon. it has lingered on within philosophical musing from the ancient times and today, the word morality is becoming increasingly difficult to define.

There are growing trends and advancements that redefine the application of human morality (At least in terms of acceptability)

Take for instance, there was a time homosexuality was regarded as immoral but today it is not.

This thread is meant for a good discussion on the nature of morality, what is the essence of moral values, why something is moral or not, whether morality is binding or not, is God important for morality to be?

And whether morality is an objective or subjective value?

So what do you think and why?

let us argue and disagree calmly or fiercely but without personal insults or banters

Morality is subjective, it has always been and would continue to be

people who argue for objective morality especially the religious ones are just attempting to hijack what morality is. this became necessary for them as religion answered less and less questions than it did in the past, its lost most of its relevancy so they're left with inserting religion into as many things as they can. the problem I have with religious people who advocate for objective morality is that they CAN'T demonstrate how they came to that conclusion without being fallacious, facetious, making logic jumps and guesses along the way

Observation alone shows morality is subjective although I learnt Dalaman thinks morality is objective, I would like to hear his argument and perhaps change my mind or his

hopefulLandlord:
Morality is subjective, it has always been and would continue to be

people who argue for objective morality especially the religious ones are just attempting to hijack what morality is. this became necessary for them as religion answered less and less questions than it did in the past, its lost most of its relevancy so they're left with inserting religion into as many things as they can. the problem I have with religious people who advocate for objective morality is that they CAN'T demonstrate how they came to that conclusion without being fallacious, facetious, making logic jumps and guesses along the way

Observation alone shows morality is subjective although I learnt Dalaman thinks morality is objective, I would like to hear his argument and perhaps change my mind or his

Do you think morality should be objective or subjective?

Gggg102:

Do you think morality should be objective or subjective?

"Should be" makes the question loaded a bit sir

hopefulLandlord:


"Should be" makes the question loaded a bit

I think that aspect is left out a lot even though it is very important.


From a realistic point of view, morality is subjective as shown by history.

From an idealistic point of view a subjective morality creates a world where nobody is wrong. What is immoral for you could be moral for me and since morality is subjective, you would not be able to condemn me. Objective morality works in an ideal environment.

hopefulLandlord:
Morality is subjective, it has always been and would continue to be

people who argue for objective morality especially the religious ones are just attempting to hijack what morality is. this became necessary for them as religion answered less and less questions than it did in the past, its lost most of its relevancy so they're left with inserting religion into as many things as they can. the problem I have with religious people who advocate for objective morality is that they CAN'T demonstrate how they came to that conclusion without being fallacious, facetious, making logic jumps and guesses along the way

Observation alone shows morality is subjective although I learnt Dalaman thinks morality is objective, I would like to hear his argument and perhaps change my mind or his

I believe morality can be objective. Morality is a human construct and as such it can use humans as the rallying point in making it objective. Be that as it may, morality as we know it and as it stands now is not objective. If it is, then all human morality will come about the same way and will also be viewed by all the same way.

Gggg102:


I think that aspect is left out a lot even though it is very important.


From a realistic point of view, morality is subjective as shown by history.

From an idealistic point of view a subjective morality creates a world where nobody is wrong. What is immoral for you could be moral for me and since morality is subjective, you would not be able to condemn me. Objective morality works in an ideal environment.

Interesting but I'm yet to get your point though

From the idealistic POV, objective morality isn't any better, does it? or at least not better as described by its proponents

Let me ask you, what is objective morality according to you? let's agree on the basics first and move from there

dalaman:


I believe morality can be objective. Morality is a human construct and as such it can use humans as the rallying point in making it objective. Be that as it may, morality as we know it and as it stands now is not objective. If it is all human morality will come about the same way and will also be viewed by all the same way.

So you're saying since morality is human construct, constructed for humans with humans in mind then we can put humans at the centre of it then think about how actions would affect humans. with this goal we'll be able to objectively assert that certain actions are bad because it impacts humans negatively and certain actions are good cuz it has positive impacts?

hopefulLandlord:


So you're saying since morality is human construct, constructed for humans with humans in mind then we can put humans at the centre of it then think about how actions would affect humans. with this goal we'll be able to objectively assert that certain actions are bad because it impacts humans negatively and certain actions are good cuz it has positive impacts?

You've summarized it perfectly.

dalaman:


You've summarized it perfectly.

Good! seems to me you're advocating for consequesntialism that considers only humans

based on this, how do you think Moral dilemmas are to be handled? I mean complex moral questions not the simple ones we're used to

check out this dilemma https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

hopefulLandlord:

Interesting but I'm yet to get your point though

From the idealistic POV, objective morality isn't any better, does it? or at least not better as described by its proponents

Let me ask you, what is objective morality according to you? let's agree on the basics first and move from there

Objective morality =morality set in stone. By whom or what is not much importance. What is good will be good no matter the circumstances and what is bad remains bad.

Like now we have laws guiding us. Even though these laws are subjective in the true sense, they are objective enough at present. Murder is bad for instance. It is in the law, it is set in stone(for now) if you kill, you've committed a crime and you get punished. In a truly subjective society, everybody does as he feels is moral. Since there is no objective source of morality you are not capable of condemning me if I do something you consider immoral if I consider the same thing moral. Your truth won't be my truth since there isn't any fixed truth.

For example the Nigerian law is objective for Nigerians. Homosexuality is bad in Nigeria and that is it. If you are gay, you get punished. If morality is truly objective, homosexuality would remain bad. Then in certain European climes, homosexuality is moral and that is the objective stand point of their law. Being gay is normal there. Can a Nigerian in Europe punish an European for being gay in Europe? Or can a European free all the convicted homosexuals in Nigeria because according to Europe homosexuality is legal?

Or in football terms imagine there were no fixed rules. If a player sees it right to carry the ball with is hands and run to the opponents goalposts to score a goal no-one would be able to do anything since according to that player's subjective reasoning, he is right and there is no objective rules to follow.

hopefulLandlord:
Morality is subjective, it has always been and would continue to be

Ok

people who argue for objective morality especially the religious ones are just attempting to hijack what morality is. this became necessary for them as religion answered less and less questions than it did in the past, its lost most of its relevancy so they're left with inserting religion into as many things as they can. the problem I have with religious people who advocate for objective morality is that they CAN'T demonstrate how they came to that conclusion without being fallacious, facetious, making logic jumps and guesses along the way

Why do you think morality is subjective?

Observation alone shows morality is subjective although I learnt Dalaman thinks morality is objective, I would like to hear his argument and perhaps change my mind or his

Doesn't subjectivity make morality arbitrary?

Gggg102:


I think that aspect is left out a lot even though it is very important.


From a realistic point of view, morality is subjective as shown by history.

From an idealistic point of view a subjective morality creates a world where nobody is wrong. What is immoral for you could be moral for me and since morality is subjective, you would not be able to condemn me. Objective morality works in an ideal environment.

Correct. subjectivity in morality makes morality arbitrary. You can't really say anyone is wrong because their sense of being wrong may be different from yours

johnydon22:


Correct. subjectivity in morality makes morality arbitrary. You can't really say anyone is wrong because their sense of being wrong may be different from yours

I have similar view with dalaman on this. Objective morality from empathy.

Treat others how you want to be treated but mostly, treat others how they want you to treat them.

this morality would still be subjective as it is manmade it and by extension man can also change it. It is not fixed. So in the real world, morality is subjective.

Morality is subjective, like Charles Addams said "Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly.".

This also means what's moral for some group of people can be immoral to another group. E.g Polygamy is a moral practice by Muslims, in Christianity it is immoral and even seen as adultery.

The concept of morality is universal but the applications surrounding it are different and subjective.

For morality to be objective like dalaman's opinion, I don't think it's possible unless someone like Thanos exist to make humans share same thoughts, ideology with the magical infinity gems.

Mortality is subjective. It can't be objective given the different peoples and their ideologies. I feel if morality is objective, it would hinder a lot of progress

I think morality is subjective. Morality improves as we gain more knowledge. Once we gain all the knowledge that can ever exist, we can then have an objective morality.

RuthlessLeader:
I think morality is subjective. Morality improves as we gain more knowledge. Once we gain all the knowledge that can ever exist, we can then have an objective morality.

Elucidate?

How does new knowledge help us improve moral outlook?

festwiz:
Mortality is subjective. It can't be objective given the different peoples and their ideologies.

So, something is only wrong depending from which perspective it is judged from?

I feel if morality is objective, it would hinder a lot of progress

Would you say murder is subjectively or objectively wrong?

johnydon22:
Elucidate?

How does new knowledge help us improve moral outlook?

Several years ago, women were considered the inferior sex, gays were seen as mentally ill, people with mental illnesses were seen as demon possessed and slavery wasn't wrong. Obviously as we got more knowledge about biology and psychology, we realised we were wrong and what was once seen as right is now wrong. That is what I mean when I say subjective morality is best. Human's are morons and having an objective morality with this ignorance as a foundation of it will only work as long as we have no new information. Once we get new knowledge, that morality looks bad in hindsight.

P.S: did you know that corporal punishment reduces the grey matter in the childs brain

Is it possible all Humans share same thoughts, ideology? If that's possible or happens them morality can be objective but for now in reality morality is subjective.

Gggg102:


Objective morality =morality set in stone. By whom or what is not much importance. What is good will be good no matter the circumstances and what is bad remains bad.

Not that I'm disagreeing with this definition of yours but it does not tally with the judeochristian perspective. Objective morality to them isn't "set in stone" but whatever their god says. the change in morality from Old to New testament shows this but let's go by your definition. How do you demonstrate this to be the case? don't you think this still needs some demonstrating and research? is objective morality as you define it testable, verifiable and falsifiable?

What if I state that the objective flavour of ice cream is set in stone, by whom or what is not such importance?

Like now we have laws guiding us. Even though these laws are subjective in the true sense, they are objective enough at present. Murder is bad for instance. It is in the law, it is set in stone(for now) if you kill, you've committed a crime and you get punished. In a truly subjective society, everybody does as he feels is moral. Since there is no objective source of morality you are not capable of condemning me if I do something you consider immoral if I consider the same thing moral. Your truth won't be my truth since there isn't any fixed truth.

If you start with "Murder is bad" well murder has always and would continue to be bad. in fact I would say if there's any such thing as objective morality, it would say murder is bad.
Now my issue with statements like "Murder is bad" is how you define what murder actually is, what constitutes murder in Saudi Arabia would be different from what constitutes it in USA even though both would state unequivocally that murder is bad which makes murder kinda subjective even though it appears objective when worded as "Murder is bad"

For example the Nigerian law is objective for Nigerians. Homosexuality is bad in Nigeria and that is it. If you are gay, you get punished. If morality is truly objective, homosexuality would remain bad. Then in certain European climes, homosexuality is moral and that is the objective stand point of their law. Being gay is normal there. Can a Nigerian in Europe punish an European for being gay in Europe? Or can a European free all the convicted homosexuals in Nigeria because according to Europe homosexuality is legal?

I think you just muddled things up a bit here sir

If in your quest to explain objective morality you have to say Homosexuality being bad in Nigeria is objective to Nigerians then it proves my point. break it down from Nigeria further and what's legal in one state may be illegal in another but its "set in stone in Lagos state". move further and further downwards and you'll arrive at individual Nigerians deciding for themselves. these individuals then vote lawmakers who take their (the voter's) individual morality into consideration to make laws. this doesn't in anyway make it objective to Nigerians and most times what they (those who's morality differ from what the lawmakers passed) do is conform for fear of punishment and hope someday people like them would make it to lawmaking level or lawmakers would consider people like them more

The basis of it all however is that something "objective" was made out of "collective subjectivity"

to explain that, if I think its okay to slap people as a form of greeting but majority and the law thinks its bad. then its "objectively bad" according to your explanation. If I meet people who agree with me that its okay and we run away to a remote part somewhere to create our own civilization, pass a law endorsing slapping of people as a form of greeting then it becomes "objectively good"

all these still starts from a point of subjectivity Or did I misunderstand your explanation?

Or in football terms imagine there were no fixed rules. If a player sees it right to carry the ball with is hands and run to the opponents goalposts to score a goal no-one would be able to do anything since according to that player's subjective reasoning, he is right and there is no objective rules to follow.

football by definition wouldn't allow for that though, such a person can create his own sport (eg American football) where handling of balls are allowed but still call it "football" or something else but if he agrees to play "association football" then he has agreed its illegal to deliberately handle the ball

johnydon22:


Ok



Why do you think morality is subjective?

From observation and the fact that evidence so far points to this. also the fact that those that advocate for objective morality can't seem to demonstrate it to be true. I think objective morality is a claim that doesn't pass for testability. its like me claiming there's an objective flavour of ice cream. there might very well be but how do I demonstrate it to be true? till I'm able to then it makes sense to say its subjective

It seems I'm attacking objective morality more than I'm defending subjective morality though

Doesn't subjectivity make morality arbitrary?

I don't see how proponents of objective morality can demonstrate it isn't either.

Anything we think morality is starts from arbitrariness then appear to move gradually away from there

johnydon22:
So, something is only wrong depending from which perspective it is judged from?

Would you say murder is subjectively or objectively wrong?

1. Yes. Like what someone pointed out as regarding gay laws for example.

2. Murder is subjectively wrong. We have security outfits such as the military, police etc that commit murder with 'buts'. If it were to be objectively wrong, then wars won't be fought, criminals won't be killed etc. It may not be the best thing in the world, but there is always a time when it's necessary. Let's look at self defense for example whence you "accidentally" commit murder. It doesn't change the fact that it's murder 'but', this person could've probably killed you and your family and a whole lot more.

hopefulLandlord:



If you start with "Murder is bad" well murder has always and would continue to be bad. in fact I would say if there's any such thing as objective morality, it would say murder is bad.

Now my issue with statements like "Murder is bad" is how you define what murder actually is, what constitutes murder in Saudi Arabia would be different from what constitutes it in USA even though both would state unequivocally that murder is bad which makes murder kinda subjective even though it appears objective when worded as "Murder is bad"

You just nailed this part, the word "murder is bad" is universal but the applications for what murder is are different.

In Saudi Arabia homosexuals, atheists are killed under capital punishment which infact is not the case in U.S, it's a murder case in U.S. In some countries like Canada, Belgium etc assisted suicide is legalize in muslim countries it's prohibited.

hopefulLandlord:

Not that I'm disagreeing with this definition of yours but it does not tally with the judeochristian perspective. Objective morality to them isn't "set in stone" but whatever their god says. the change in morality from Old to New testament shows this but let's go by your definition. How do you demonstrate this to be the case? don't you think this still needs some demonstrating and research? is objective morality as you define it testable, verifiable and falsifiable?

What if I state that the objective flavour of ice cream is set in stone, by whom or what is not such importance?

If you start with "Murder is bad" well murder has always and would continue to be bad. in fact I would say if there's any such thing as objective morality, it would say murder is bad.
Now my issue with statements like "Murder is bad" is how you define what murder actually is, what constitutes murder in Saudi Arabia would be different from what constitutes it in USA even though both would state unequivocally that murder is bad which makes murder kinda subjective even though it appears objective when worded as "Murder is bad"

I think you just muddled things up a bit here sir

If in your quest to explain objective morality you have to say Homosexuality being bad in Nigeria is objective to Nigerians then it proves my point. break it down from Nigeria further and what's legal in one state may be illegal in another but its "set in stone in Lagos state". move further and further downwards and you'll arrive at individual Nigerians deciding for themselves. these individuals then vote lawmakers who take their (the voter's) individual morality into consideration to make laws. this doesn't in anyway make it objective to Nigerians and most times what they (those who's morality differ from what the lawmakers passed) do is conform for fear of punishment and hope someday people like them would make it to lawmaking level or lawmakers would consider people like them more

The basis of it all however is that something "objective" was made out of "collective subjectivity"

as long as homosexuality is bad in the law of Nigeria, it remains bad for Nigerians. the Nigerian law is the objective authority in Nigeria although the law itself is subjective and can be changed.

to explain that, if I think its okay to slap people as a form of greeting but majority and the law thinks its bad. then its "objectively bad" according to your explanation. If I meet people who agree with me that its okay and we run away to a remote part somewhere to create our own civilization, pass a law endorsing slapping of people as a form of greeting then it becomes "objectively good"

all these still starts from a point of subjectivity Or did I misunderstand your explanation?



football by definition wouldn't allow for that though, such a person can create his own sport (eg American football) where handling of balls are allowed but still call it "football" or something else but if he agrees to play "association football" then he has agreed its illegal to deliberately handle the ball

the judeochristian objective morality is objective enough at the human level. what god says is good is good and that is what is good. no questioning god's morality since he his a higher being with a lot of power and superior intelligence.
with respect to god, the morality could be subjective and would still create a problem.
if it is good because god commanded it, then anything can be good.
what if that higher authority is evil and decides murder is good?
the judeochristian morality is objective enough at our level but subjective at the higher level.

what constitutes murder would have to be objectively defined also. if it isn't, murder remains arbitrary.

then anybody holding the ice-cream has to call it that flavour as that is what's is right.


I think you misunderstood a bit. I was saying the exact same thing you said.

if the law agree that slapping as a form of greeting is bad, then it will be a crime to slap as a form of greeting. the law is seen as objective for every citizen even though it is truly subjective.
if you and your people run to a remote location and make a law where you can greet by slapping, then slapping would be objectively right for citizens of remoteland, although it is still subjective.


true objective morality would remain the same anywhere you go.


football won't allow it became it's rules have been objectively set. however, the set rules are subjective. let's say a FIFA decides it to be legal to play ball with your hand, then it becomes legal. the rules of football are objective to the players on the field, but they are subjective as they can be changed.

Gggg102:


the judeochristian objective morality is objective enough at the human level. what god says is good is good and that is what is good. no questioning god's morality since he his a higher being with a lot of power and superior intelligence.
with respect to god, the morality could be subjective and would still create a problem.
if it is good because god commanded it, then anything can be good.
what if that higher authority is evil and decides murder is good?
the judeochristian morality is objective enough at our level but subjective at the higher level.

what constitutes murder would have to be objectively defined also. if it isn't, murder remains arbitrary.

then anybody holding the ice-cream has to call it that flavour as that is what's is right.


I think you misunderstood a bit. I was saying the exact same thing you said.

if the law agree that slapping as a form of greeting is bad, then it will be a crime to slap as a form of greeting. the law is seen as objective for every citizen even though it is truly subjective.
if you and your people run to a remote location and make a law where you can greet by slapping, then slapping would be objectively right for citizens of remoteland, although it is still subjective.


true objective morality would remain the same anywhere you go.


football won't allow it became it's rules have been objectively set. however, the set rules are subjective. let's say a FIFA decides it to be legal to play ball with your hand, then it becomes legal. the rules of football are objective to the players on the field, but they are subjective as they can be changed.

Honestly though, it appears your argument favours subjective morality than it does objective morality or am I misunderstanding you?

You seem to be agreeing morality starts from subjectivity.

hopefulLandlord:


Honestly though, it appears your argument favours subjective morality than it does objective morality or am I misunderstanding you?

You seem to be agreeing morality starts from subjectivity

yes.

that's why I said in a realistic view it is subjective.
I think morality would/should be objective in an ideal world.

Gggg102:


yes.

that's why I said in a realistic view it is subjective.
I think morality would/should be objective in an ideal world.

okay then, I was hoping to hear from people who claim morality is not subjective in a realistic view

hopefulLandlord:


okay then, I was hoping to hear from people who claim morality is not subjective in a realistic view

I think the closest we can get to objective morality in the realistic view is ruthlessleader's view. there could be objective morality and we are learning towards it.

festwiz:

1. Yes. Like what someone pointed out as regarding gay laws for example.

2. Murder is subjectively wrong. We have security outfits such as the military, police etc that commit murder with 'buts'. If it were to be objectively wrong, then wars won't be fought, criminals won't be killed etc. It may not be the best thing in the world, but there is always a time when it's necessary. Let's look at self defense for example whence you "accidentally" commit murder. It doesn't change the fact that it's murder 'but', this person could've probably killed you and your family and a whole lot more.

So I may kill someone I believe what I'm doing is right and it is right?

hopefulLandlord:

From observation and the fact that evidence so far points to this. also the fact that those that advocate for objective morality can't seem to demonstrate it to be true. I think objective morality is a claim that doesn't pass for testability. its like me claiming there's an objective flavour of ice cream. there might very well be but how do I demonstrate it to be true? till I'm able to then it makes sense to say its subjective

It seems I'm attacking objective morality more than I'm defending subjective morality though
I don't see how proponents of objective morality can demonstrate it isn't either.

Anything we think morality is starts from arbitrariness then appear to move gradually away from there

When do we say a moral line have moved away from being non-binding to binding?

And what exactly makes it binding to individuals even ones that do not subscribe to its origin compass?/